Vertical Accountability
#10Key Findings
Austria falls into the upper-middle ranks (rank 10) in the area of vertical accountability.
Elections are free and fair, with impartial and effective electoral management bodies. All Austrian citizens living in Austria are allowed to vote. The major parties serve as gatekeepers, with few genuinely independent candidates playing significant political roles.
New campaign-finance regulations have made party financing more transparent. Parties’ organizational structures reflect Austria’s federal nature. The right-wing FPÖ party has consistently drawn the most support in polls.
Austria was the last EU member state to pass a freedom of information law. This was approved in 2024, and will take effect in 2025. Critics say it fails to address a number of important issues.
Elections are free and fair, with impartial and effective electoral management bodies. All Austrian citizens living in Austria are allowed to vote. The major parties serve as gatekeepers, with few genuinely independent candidates playing significant political roles.
New campaign-finance regulations have made party financing more transparent. Parties’ organizational structures reflect Austria’s federal nature. The right-wing FPÖ party has consistently drawn the most support in polls.
Austria was the last EU member state to pass a freedom of information law. This was approved in 2024, and will take effect in 2025. Critics say it fails to address a number of important issues.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent is political competition among candidates and political parties free and fair?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to effective political competition.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to effective political competition.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to effective political competition.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to effective political competition.
Registration procedures for candidates and political parties in Austria meet established standards of transparency and fairness, including specific requirements such as financial deposits, age, party affiliation, and petition signatures. No eligible candidates have been prevented from being elected or disqualified from registration by undue or questionable criteria or practices.
However, it is significantly easier for parties already enjoying parliamentary representation to register for an upcoming election than for genuine newcomers. For example, parties holding seats in the Nationalrat need the signatures of just three members of parliament to launch another candidacy, while parties lacking any parliamentary representation need the signatures of 2,600 citizens for a nationwide candidacy. To be considered eligible for the office of federal president, a candidate needs the signatures of 6,000 Austrian citizens.
The presidential election of 2022 – which featured an incumbent seeking reelection – was widely considered to demonstrate the openness of competition even for the highest political office. Six other candidates secured between 1.6 and 17.7% of the vote, with three of them obtaining 8% or more of the total vote.
Electoral Commissions operate at various levels of the Austrian polity (national, state, and regional), deciding on issues concerning the eligibility of potential candidates. Parties and individual candidates can object to an electoral commission’s decision by taking their case to an administrative court. These courts have not hesitated to accept different types of claims and have ruled in favor of candidates.
While every Austrian citizen has an equal opportunity to run as a candidate – at a minimum age of 18 for all parliamentary elections and 35 for candidates competing for the office of federal president – there are significant de facto limitations reflecting the nature of a full-blown party government regime. Truly independent candidates tend to play no role in parliamentary elections at the national and state levels; Austrian parties hold an exceptionally powerful gatekeeper position.
Specifically, the Austrian electoral system requires parties to compete for votes and seats with party lists. Recent research on the composition of these lists has identified major shortcomings related to the under-representation of women, younger candidates, and particularly candidates “with a migration background.” In party list regimes, a latent form of discrimination against certain candidates involves their low ranking on a party list. The fact that this has not become a major issue in the public arena underscores the existence of unwritten rules of competition between different candidates, even within a given party.
Parties and candidates are required to maintain accurate financial records, disclose the nature and value of received donations, and publish their accounts regularly. In 2022, wide-ranging changes to the established party finance rules were introduced. These changes came into force on January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024, respectively. In particular, parties now have several new obligations, such as publishing the names of their donors and the donations received. The threshold for donations not requiring public declaration has been lowered from €2,500 to €500 per year and donor. For funds received from membership fees, the name of the member must be disclosed for any amount exceeding €5,000 per year. Additionally, parties must provide the Austrian Court of Audit with a list of any debts exceeding €50,000 they may have with private loan givers, as well as a list of all organizations closely associated with the party (according to § 5 of the Party Finance Law). Furthermore, parties are required to disclose the exact size of shares they or any affiliated organizations hold in any company. Moreover, there is a new explicit duty for parties to store all records and files for potential inspection for at least seven years. Since January 1, 2023, parties must also report to the Austrian Court of Audit on a quarterly basis any individual donations exceeding €150, disclosing the name of the donor.
These recent changes have been urged and effectively triggered by the Austrian Court of Audit, which implies that Austrian parties have recurrently sought to exploit loopholes in the law to their benefit. The leeway of the Court of Audit has been expanded by recent reforms. Since 2023 the Court has not only the right to insist on a new report by a party if a report is found to be unsatisfactory, as in the past, but also the authority to take the initiative if it suspects any possible violation of the established party finance rules.
There is also a particular agency (unabhängiger Parteien-Transparenz-Senat, UPTS), located in the Federal Chancellor’s Office, that has the right to impose fines for violations of party finance rules. Fines can only be imposed after the Court of Audit has taken an initiative. However, the members of the UPTS – who are appointed by the federal president following a suggestion by the federal government – are independent and not subject to any instructions. The possible fines for certain violations have recently been increased. Delays in submitting accounting reports to the Court of Audit can also be fined.
Candidates and parties generally enjoy fair opportunities to access the media and other communication channels. Access to the media is neither restricted nor institutionally denied on the basis of ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, birth, or other status. Also, the media landscape as a whole generally offers fair coverage of various political positions.
In constitutional practice, some limits to the idea of “perfect equality” can be identified. During electoral campaigns, all parties with parliamentary representation have the right to participate in unbiased debates hosted by a public broadcaster. However, this may disadvantage new parties that are not covered by this guarantee. Similarly, while there is an established practice of giving many different candidates – not just the top candidates of the major parties – a platform by organizing “one-on-one discussions” between candidates from different parties, there has been a strong bias toward candidates from parties enjoying parliamentary representation.
Research on media coverage of women candidates during the 2019 election campaign concluded that: “Throughout the last decade, women politicians in Austria have struggled with the media ceiling and changes have been minimal. A real gender bias still exists in Austrian campaign coverage: Women are considerably less visible in media coverage (…), they have fewer opportunities to impact the political agenda than their male counterparts (…), and they are assigned more often to speak about soft issues” (Hayek et al. 2022). However, the same study suggests that when women are their party’s top candidate – such as SPÖ-party leader Pamela Rendi-Wagner in 2019 – the observed gender-related differences tend to disappear.
There are no formal mechanisms in place that provide significant advantages to specific candidates or parties regarding media access and coverage. However, there has been a long-standing “special relationship” between some top political office holders, or candidates seeking reelection, and the tabloid press. Chancellor Werner Faymann (SPÖ, 2008 – 2016) was well known for enjoying biased support from Austria’s largest tabloid newspaper, Die Kronenzeitung, both as a chancellor candidate in 2008 and throughout his chancellorship. More critical in terms of violating the rules of fair political competition were the practices observed under the chancellorship of Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP, 2017 – 2021; see Wodak 2022). As revealed through both parliamentary and judicial investigations, Kurz and his inner circle apparently bought “fake survey results” and friendly coverage by the widely read free newspaper Österreich using public funds to enhance their status and disadvantage key competitors from other parties.
New media play an increasingly important role in Austria, with different candidates using them in fundamentally different ways. Political parties have started to use new media platforms, including social media, private-party TV channels, and YouTube channels, to spread their messages. These platforms are widely read and are becoming more important over time, but systematic attempts to manipulate political competition in Austria through new media have not yet been proven.
Citations:
https://www.parlament.gv.at/fachinfos/rlw/Was-ist-neu-im-Bereich-der-Parteienfinanzierung
https://www.parlament.gv.at/fachinfos/rlw/Wie-und-von-wem-wird-die-Parteienfinanzierung-kontrolliert
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000130585529/rechnungshof-stellt-unregelmaessigkeiten-bei-spoe-parteifinanzen-fest
https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/unabhangiger-parteien-transparenz-senat.html
Hayek, Lore, Manuel Mayrl, and Uta Russmann. 2022. “Women Politicians in Austria: Still Not Breaking the Media Ceiling.” Communications. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2021-0128
Wodak, Ruth. 2022. “Shameless Normalization as a Result of Media Control: The Case of Austria.” Discourse & Society 33 (6): 788-804.
https://www.demokratiezentrum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/boese_minderheiten.pdf
https://www.parlament.gv.at/fachinfos/rlw/Was-ist-neu-im-Bereich-der-Parteienfinanzierung
However, it is significantly easier for parties already enjoying parliamentary representation to register for an upcoming election than for genuine newcomers. For example, parties holding seats in the Nationalrat need the signatures of just three members of parliament to launch another candidacy, while parties lacking any parliamentary representation need the signatures of 2,600 citizens for a nationwide candidacy. To be considered eligible for the office of federal president, a candidate needs the signatures of 6,000 Austrian citizens.
The presidential election of 2022 – which featured an incumbent seeking reelection – was widely considered to demonstrate the openness of competition even for the highest political office. Six other candidates secured between 1.6 and 17.7% of the vote, with three of them obtaining 8% or more of the total vote.
Electoral Commissions operate at various levels of the Austrian polity (national, state, and regional), deciding on issues concerning the eligibility of potential candidates. Parties and individual candidates can object to an electoral commission’s decision by taking their case to an administrative court. These courts have not hesitated to accept different types of claims and have ruled in favor of candidates.
While every Austrian citizen has an equal opportunity to run as a candidate – at a minimum age of 18 for all parliamentary elections and 35 for candidates competing for the office of federal president – there are significant de facto limitations reflecting the nature of a full-blown party government regime. Truly independent candidates tend to play no role in parliamentary elections at the national and state levels; Austrian parties hold an exceptionally powerful gatekeeper position.
Specifically, the Austrian electoral system requires parties to compete for votes and seats with party lists. Recent research on the composition of these lists has identified major shortcomings related to the under-representation of women, younger candidates, and particularly candidates “with a migration background.” In party list regimes, a latent form of discrimination against certain candidates involves their low ranking on a party list. The fact that this has not become a major issue in the public arena underscores the existence of unwritten rules of competition between different candidates, even within a given party.
Parties and candidates are required to maintain accurate financial records, disclose the nature and value of received donations, and publish their accounts regularly. In 2022, wide-ranging changes to the established party finance rules were introduced. These changes came into force on January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024, respectively. In particular, parties now have several new obligations, such as publishing the names of their donors and the donations received. The threshold for donations not requiring public declaration has been lowered from €2,500 to €500 per year and donor. For funds received from membership fees, the name of the member must be disclosed for any amount exceeding €5,000 per year. Additionally, parties must provide the Austrian Court of Audit with a list of any debts exceeding €50,000 they may have with private loan givers, as well as a list of all organizations closely associated with the party (according to § 5 of the Party Finance Law). Furthermore, parties are required to disclose the exact size of shares they or any affiliated organizations hold in any company. Moreover, there is a new explicit duty for parties to store all records and files for potential inspection for at least seven years. Since January 1, 2023, parties must also report to the Austrian Court of Audit on a quarterly basis any individual donations exceeding €150, disclosing the name of the donor.
These recent changes have been urged and effectively triggered by the Austrian Court of Audit, which implies that Austrian parties have recurrently sought to exploit loopholes in the law to their benefit. The leeway of the Court of Audit has been expanded by recent reforms. Since 2023 the Court has not only the right to insist on a new report by a party if a report is found to be unsatisfactory, as in the past, but also the authority to take the initiative if it suspects any possible violation of the established party finance rules.
There is also a particular agency (unabhängiger Parteien-Transparenz-Senat, UPTS), located in the Federal Chancellor’s Office, that has the right to impose fines for violations of party finance rules. Fines can only be imposed after the Court of Audit has taken an initiative. However, the members of the UPTS – who are appointed by the federal president following a suggestion by the federal government – are independent and not subject to any instructions. The possible fines for certain violations have recently been increased. Delays in submitting accounting reports to the Court of Audit can also be fined.
Candidates and parties generally enjoy fair opportunities to access the media and other communication channels. Access to the media is neither restricted nor institutionally denied on the basis of ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, birth, or other status. Also, the media landscape as a whole generally offers fair coverage of various political positions.
In constitutional practice, some limits to the idea of “perfect equality” can be identified. During electoral campaigns, all parties with parliamentary representation have the right to participate in unbiased debates hosted by a public broadcaster. However, this may disadvantage new parties that are not covered by this guarantee. Similarly, while there is an established practice of giving many different candidates – not just the top candidates of the major parties – a platform by organizing “one-on-one discussions” between candidates from different parties, there has been a strong bias toward candidates from parties enjoying parliamentary representation.
Research on media coverage of women candidates during the 2019 election campaign concluded that: “Throughout the last decade, women politicians in Austria have struggled with the media ceiling and changes have been minimal. A real gender bias still exists in Austrian campaign coverage: Women are considerably less visible in media coverage (…), they have fewer opportunities to impact the political agenda than their male counterparts (…), and they are assigned more often to speak about soft issues” (Hayek et al. 2022). However, the same study suggests that when women are their party’s top candidate – such as SPÖ-party leader Pamela Rendi-Wagner in 2019 – the observed gender-related differences tend to disappear.
There are no formal mechanisms in place that provide significant advantages to specific candidates or parties regarding media access and coverage. However, there has been a long-standing “special relationship” between some top political office holders, or candidates seeking reelection, and the tabloid press. Chancellor Werner Faymann (SPÖ, 2008 – 2016) was well known for enjoying biased support from Austria’s largest tabloid newspaper, Die Kronenzeitung, both as a chancellor candidate in 2008 and throughout his chancellorship. More critical in terms of violating the rules of fair political competition were the practices observed under the chancellorship of Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP, 2017 – 2021; see Wodak 2022). As revealed through both parliamentary and judicial investigations, Kurz and his inner circle apparently bought “fake survey results” and friendly coverage by the widely read free newspaper Österreich using public funds to enhance their status and disadvantage key competitors from other parties.
New media play an increasingly important role in Austria, with different candidates using them in fundamentally different ways. Political parties have started to use new media platforms, including social media, private-party TV channels, and YouTube channels, to spread their messages. These platforms are widely read and are becoming more important over time, but systematic attempts to manipulate political competition in Austria through new media have not yet been proven.
Citations:
https://www.parlament.gv.at/fachinfos/rlw/Was-ist-neu-im-Bereich-der-Parteienfinanzierung
https://www.parlament.gv.at/fachinfos/rlw/Wie-und-von-wem-wird-die-Parteienfinanzierung-kontrolliert
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000130585529/rechnungshof-stellt-unregelmaessigkeiten-bei-spoe-parteifinanzen-fest
https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/unabhangiger-parteien-transparenz-senat.html
Hayek, Lore, Manuel Mayrl, and Uta Russmann. 2022. “Women Politicians in Austria: Still Not Breaking the Media Ceiling.” Communications. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2021-0128
Wodak, Ruth. 2022. “Shameless Normalization as a Result of Media Control: The Case of Austria.” Discourse & Society 33 (6): 788-804.
https://www.demokratiezentrum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/boese_minderheiten.pdf
https://www.parlament.gv.at/fachinfos/rlw/Was-ist-neu-im-Bereich-der-Parteienfinanzierung
To what extent can all citizens, both in legal terms (de jure) and in practice (de facto), exercise their right to vote?
10
9
9
There are no significant barriers, by law or in practice, that hinder citizens or specific groups in society from exercising their right to vote.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to voting.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to voting.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles that substantially hinder voting.
Voting rights are granted to all Austrian citizens living in Austria. Since 2007, all resident Austrian nationals from the age of 16 have enjoyed the right to vote. Austrian residents do not have to register to participate in elections. By contrast, Austrian citizens living abroad have to register with the Austrian county where they lived before they left the country in order to participate in nationwide elections (Nationalrat, federal president, and European Parliament elections). Registrations are valid for 10 years and must be renewed after that.
Austrians convicted of crimes resulting in more than five years of imprisonment, or specific political crimes such as electoral fraud or terrorism with imprisonment exceeding one year, may lose their right to vote for the duration of their imprisonment. The loss of the right to vote requires an individual decision by a criminal court judge.
As Austrians aged 16 and older do not need to register, there is no disenfranchisement resulting from any flawed voter registry.
Non-Austrians have no right to vote in any nationwide election, regardless of the length of their residence, proficiency in German, or other qualifications such as paying taxes. The share of the resident population on Austrian soil has significantly increased over the past decades. Twenty years ago, 580,000 non-Austrian residents had no right to vote; at the most recent nationwide election, the presidential election of 2022, no less than 1.4 million non-Austrian residents – 18% of Austria’s population aged over 16 – had no right to vote. However, with the exception of the state of Vienna, non-Austrians from other EU countries have the right to vote not only in European Parliament elections but also in local elections if their primary address is in Austria. Non-Austrians from non-EU member states do not have any voting rights in Austria.
Individuals who have been denied the right to vote can appeal to the administrative court at the relevant level. The most commonly raised issue involves the status of residence in a given electoral district.
All democratic elections in Austria must be assessed as free and fair. Impartial and effective electoral management bodies operate at the various levels where elections occur. The highest authority in this network is the federal electoral commission, which is reconstituted for each new legislative term and chaired by the federal minister of the interior. In collaboration with Austrian courts, these authorities have ensured high standards for free and fair democratic elections.
There are more than 10,000 easily accessible polling stations for an electorate of slightly less than 6.4 million, including 62,000 non-resident Austrians (figures as of late 2022). Since 2007, Austria has operated postal voting. There have been no incidents of harassment, violence, intimidation, or any other developments violating the principle of free and fair elections. The presidential election of 2016 marked an extremely rare case of a miscalculation of votes. However, the strict ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court – which ordered a repeat election of the second ballot – bore witness to Austria’s firm commitment to free and fair elections.
Citations:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000138278942/1-4-millionen-ueber-16-jaehrige-bei-bundespraesidentenwahl-nicht-wahlberechtigt
https://noe.orf.at/magazin/stories/3028548/
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000132333855/juristische-aufarbeitung-der-bundespraesidentenwahl-2016-immer-noch-nicht-abgeschlossen
Austrians convicted of crimes resulting in more than five years of imprisonment, or specific political crimes such as electoral fraud or terrorism with imprisonment exceeding one year, may lose their right to vote for the duration of their imprisonment. The loss of the right to vote requires an individual decision by a criminal court judge.
As Austrians aged 16 and older do not need to register, there is no disenfranchisement resulting from any flawed voter registry.
Non-Austrians have no right to vote in any nationwide election, regardless of the length of their residence, proficiency in German, or other qualifications such as paying taxes. The share of the resident population on Austrian soil has significantly increased over the past decades. Twenty years ago, 580,000 non-Austrian residents had no right to vote; at the most recent nationwide election, the presidential election of 2022, no less than 1.4 million non-Austrian residents – 18% of Austria’s population aged over 16 – had no right to vote. However, with the exception of the state of Vienna, non-Austrians from other EU countries have the right to vote not only in European Parliament elections but also in local elections if their primary address is in Austria. Non-Austrians from non-EU member states do not have any voting rights in Austria.
Individuals who have been denied the right to vote can appeal to the administrative court at the relevant level. The most commonly raised issue involves the status of residence in a given electoral district.
All democratic elections in Austria must be assessed as free and fair. Impartial and effective electoral management bodies operate at the various levels where elections occur. The highest authority in this network is the federal electoral commission, which is reconstituted for each new legislative term and chaired by the federal minister of the interior. In collaboration with Austrian courts, these authorities have ensured high standards for free and fair democratic elections.
There are more than 10,000 easily accessible polling stations for an electorate of slightly less than 6.4 million, including 62,000 non-resident Austrians (figures as of late 2022). Since 2007, Austria has operated postal voting. There have been no incidents of harassment, violence, intimidation, or any other developments violating the principle of free and fair elections. The presidential election of 2016 marked an extremely rare case of a miscalculation of votes. However, the strict ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court – which ordered a repeat election of the second ballot – bore witness to Austria’s firm commitment to free and fair elections.
Citations:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000138278942/1-4-millionen-ueber-16-jaehrige-bei-bundespraesidentenwahl-nicht-wahlberechtigt
https://noe.orf.at/magazin/stories/3028548/
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000132333855/juristische-aufarbeitung-der-bundespraesidentenwahl-2016-immer-noch-nicht-abgeschlossen
Graph View
To what extent do parties articulate and aggregate all societal interests?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to achieving effective societal integration.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose no significant barriers to achieving effective societal integration.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose some significant barriers to achieving effective societal integration.
2
1
1
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose various significant barriers to achieving effective societal integration.
There are no legal barriers in the electoral system or other rules that would hinder the representation of relevant societal interests through political parties. There is a 4% threshold that parties must overcome to gain mandates at the federal level. Several states also have a 4% threshold, including Burgenland, Lower Austria, and Upper Austria. The majority of other states have a slightly higher 5% threshold, while Styria has no explicit minimum threshold for parliamentary state elections. However, by international standards, these rules cannot reasonably be considered to undermine the principle of democratic political competition and representation.
Austrian parties have a sophisticated organizational structure that reflects the federalist nature of the country as well as its lower regional units. The parties elected to parliament can be considered to represent a reasonably wide share of societal interests. The share of women members of parliament has risen more or less continuously and is currently at 40.1% in the Nationalrat, elected in 2019. However, migrants have remained strongly under-represented in parliament due to both a lack of voting rights and a tendency of most parties to place migrant candidates low on the party list.
All parties in parliament have detailed and reasonably distinct party manifestos, which are available to the public and enable voters to make an informed choice.
Citations:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000110191221/mehr-bauern-als-migranten-und-wenige-frauen-im-neuen-nationalrat
Austrian parties have a sophisticated organizational structure that reflects the federalist nature of the country as well as its lower regional units. The parties elected to parliament can be considered to represent a reasonably wide share of societal interests. The share of women members of parliament has risen more or less continuously and is currently at 40.1% in the Nationalrat, elected in 2019. However, migrants have remained strongly under-represented in parliament due to both a lack of voting rights and a tendency of most parties to place migrant candidates low on the party list.
All parties in parliament have detailed and reasonably distinct party manifestos, which are available to the public and enable voters to make an informed choice.
Citations:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000110191221/mehr-bauern-als-migranten-und-wenige-frauen-im-neuen-nationalrat
To what extent do political parties retain their ability to enable cross-party cooperation in policymaking and implementation?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to achieving effective cross-party cooperation.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose no significant barriers to achieving effective cross-party cooperation.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose some significant barriers to achieving effective cross-party cooperation.
2
1
1
Existing obstacles in the party system, by law and in practice, pose various significant barriers to achieving effective cross-party cooperation.
With the FPÖ, the Austrian Nationalrat includes a major party that many consider problematic concerning some liberal democratic values, particularly respect for minorities and migrants living in Austria. In the most recent parliamentary election in 2019, the FPÖ won 16.2% of the total vote and secured 31 seats. Since late 2021, the party has consistently been identified as the largest party in public surveys. In those surveys, the FPÖ’s support has hovered around 30%, with many supporters reportedly coming from the pool of former Sebastian Kurz backers.
The political rhetoric in Austria reflects the strong position of a party with limited respect for different minorities. However, the polarization at the programmatic-ideological level has not hindered the effective execution of public policies. Both the two governing parties – ÖVP and Greens – and the majority of opposition parties in the current Nationalrat (i.e., SPÖ and NEOS) are clearly democratic parties. The FPÖ’s support is rarely, if ever, needed, even for constitutional amendments, which require a two-thirds majority.
Arguably even more importantly, a detailed analysis of voting patterns in the Nationalrat suggests that the FPÖ is not structurally isolated. Rather, depending on the issue, it usually aligns with one or several of the other parties (see Kontrast 2023).
A particular issue that has emerged since the FPÖ became the largest party in popular opinion surveys concerns the possible role of the FPÖ and its leader, Herbert Kickl, in a future Austrian federal government. Kickl, through his rhetoric, is considered one of the most extreme right-wing leaders of the FPÖ since the war. The FPÖ and Kickl have repeatedly cited Hungary’s FIDESZ as a leading example, including its illiberal course.
While the largest party in a governing coalition is conventionally considered to have the right to fill the position of chancellor, a scenario with Kickl as chancellor has long been ruled out by all other major players. However, more recently there have been signs that the ÖVP, which formed a governing coalition with the FPÖ from 2019 – 2021 (and between 2000 – 2005), has started to warm up to the idea of forging another coalition with a Kickl-led FPÖ. In this context, it is also worth noting that in 2023 two ÖVP-FPÖ coalition governments were formed at the state level in Salzburg and Lower Austria.
Citations:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000143901321/kanzler-oder-pragmatisierter-oppositionsfuehrer-was-plant-herbert-kickl
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000146452385/bereitschaft-zu-koalition-mit-der-kickl-fpoe-waechst-in-der
https://kontrast.at/abstimmungen-im-nationalrat/
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000203911/systemparteien-volksverrat-ketten-brechen-kickl-und-die-sprache-der-nazis
The political rhetoric in Austria reflects the strong position of a party with limited respect for different minorities. However, the polarization at the programmatic-ideological level has not hindered the effective execution of public policies. Both the two governing parties – ÖVP and Greens – and the majority of opposition parties in the current Nationalrat (i.e., SPÖ and NEOS) are clearly democratic parties. The FPÖ’s support is rarely, if ever, needed, even for constitutional amendments, which require a two-thirds majority.
Arguably even more importantly, a detailed analysis of voting patterns in the Nationalrat suggests that the FPÖ is not structurally isolated. Rather, depending on the issue, it usually aligns with one or several of the other parties (see Kontrast 2023).
A particular issue that has emerged since the FPÖ became the largest party in popular opinion surveys concerns the possible role of the FPÖ and its leader, Herbert Kickl, in a future Austrian federal government. Kickl, through his rhetoric, is considered one of the most extreme right-wing leaders of the FPÖ since the war. The FPÖ and Kickl have repeatedly cited Hungary’s FIDESZ as a leading example, including its illiberal course.
While the largest party in a governing coalition is conventionally considered to have the right to fill the position of chancellor, a scenario with Kickl as chancellor has long been ruled out by all other major players. However, more recently there have been signs that the ÖVP, which formed a governing coalition with the FPÖ from 2019 – 2021 (and between 2000 – 2005), has started to warm up to the idea of forging another coalition with a Kickl-led FPÖ. In this context, it is also worth noting that in 2023 two ÖVP-FPÖ coalition governments were formed at the state level in Salzburg and Lower Austria.
Citations:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000143901321/kanzler-oder-pragmatisierter-oppositionsfuehrer-was-plant-herbert-kickl
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000146452385/bereitschaft-zu-koalition-mit-der-kickl-fpoe-waechst-in-der
https://kontrast.at/abstimmungen-im-nationalrat/
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000203911/systemparteien-volksverrat-ketten-brechen-kickl-und-die-sprache-der-nazis
Graph View
To what extent can citizens and residents access official information?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, for citizens seeking to access official information.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles for citizens seeking to access official information.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles for citizens seeking to access official information.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose many/various significant obstacles for citizens seeking to access official information.
Austria was the last EU member state without a freedom of information law. However, in October 2023, the ÖVP-Green federal government initiated a Freedom of Information bill (“Informationsfreiheitsgesetz”). In December, the largest opposition party, the SPÖ, signaled its support for the bill, which requires a two-thirds majority for legislative approval, after successfully negotiating several changes to the original draft. The bill was passed by the Nationalrat on January 31, 2024, following an extended parliamentary debate that highlighted the new legislation’s weaknesses and strengths (see Der Standard, 31.01.24).
The bill, which will come into force in 2025, was hailed by government ministers as a “transparency revolution.” However, a careful assessment suggests that several key issues are not really being resolved by this bill. The bill stipulates a proactive duty of the administration and other public agencies to provide reasonable information in an accessible way on any issues of general interest – however, importantly, only unless there is reason to keep this information secret. Moreover, the reasons for which it is possible to withhold information from the public have been expanded; they would now also include matters that would seem to bear the risk of inflicting major economic or financial damage to any administrative unit. This means that a minister has the right to refuse to provide any information if he or she feels they could otherwise be confronted with major damage claims.
Also, for municipalities with populations of less than 5,000, there is no requirement to proactively publish relevant information. This implies that citizens in these areas would awkwardly need to challenge local authorities to secure information pertinent to them. According to data from the Association of Austrian Municipalities (2019), exactly 1,843 municipalities out of a total of 2,096 would be exempt under this new regulation. Given that many decisions affecting residents most directly are made at the municipal level, such exemptions weigh heavily on this legislative proposal.
Further, the bill seeks to establish a specific procedure for citizens to request information, including the possibility of taking matters to the Constitutional Court. However, while the timeline is being tightened somewhat, the basic procedure has been in place since the late 1980s. Additionally, based on related experience, it must be assumed that the Constitutional Court, if invoked, is highly likely to leave matters to be settled by the administrative courts. Notably absent from the proposed rules is the creation of an ombudsperson for information matters. Finally, a significant issue is that, according to this bill, any single Austrian state could veto any amendment to the proposed Freedom of Information Act.
Despite all that, the recent developments undoubtedly mark a major step forward.
Citations:
Der Standard. 2024. “Nationalrat stimmt für Informationsfreiheit – den NEOS ist es nicht geil genug.” Der Standard, January 31.
https://rsf.org/en/country/austria
https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2023/10/verfassungsministerin-edtstadler-der-moderne-staat-ist-da-mit-einem-grundrecht-auf-information-und-augenmass-fuer-die-verwaltung.html
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000190759/die-transparenzrevolution-ist-abgesagt
https://www.vienna.at/experten-kritisieren-neues-informationsfreiheitsgesetz/8335711
https://orf.at/stories/3343466/
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000190968/informationsfreiheitsgesetz-in-der-ausnahme-liegt-die-kraft
The bill, which will come into force in 2025, was hailed by government ministers as a “transparency revolution.” However, a careful assessment suggests that several key issues are not really being resolved by this bill. The bill stipulates a proactive duty of the administration and other public agencies to provide reasonable information in an accessible way on any issues of general interest – however, importantly, only unless there is reason to keep this information secret. Moreover, the reasons for which it is possible to withhold information from the public have been expanded; they would now also include matters that would seem to bear the risk of inflicting major economic or financial damage to any administrative unit. This means that a minister has the right to refuse to provide any information if he or she feels they could otherwise be confronted with major damage claims.
Also, for municipalities with populations of less than 5,000, there is no requirement to proactively publish relevant information. This implies that citizens in these areas would awkwardly need to challenge local authorities to secure information pertinent to them. According to data from the Association of Austrian Municipalities (2019), exactly 1,843 municipalities out of a total of 2,096 would be exempt under this new regulation. Given that many decisions affecting residents most directly are made at the municipal level, such exemptions weigh heavily on this legislative proposal.
Further, the bill seeks to establish a specific procedure for citizens to request information, including the possibility of taking matters to the Constitutional Court. However, while the timeline is being tightened somewhat, the basic procedure has been in place since the late 1980s. Additionally, based on related experience, it must be assumed that the Constitutional Court, if invoked, is highly likely to leave matters to be settled by the administrative courts. Notably absent from the proposed rules is the creation of an ombudsperson for information matters. Finally, a significant issue is that, according to this bill, any single Austrian state could veto any amendment to the proposed Freedom of Information Act.
Despite all that, the recent developments undoubtedly mark a major step forward.
Citations:
Der Standard. 2024. “Nationalrat stimmt für Informationsfreiheit – den NEOS ist es nicht geil genug.” Der Standard, January 31.
https://rsf.org/en/country/austria
https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2023/10/verfassungsministerin-edtstadler-der-moderne-staat-ist-da-mit-einem-grundrecht-auf-information-und-augenmass-fuer-die-verwaltung.html
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000190759/die-transparenzrevolution-ist-abgesagt
https://www.vienna.at/experten-kritisieren-neues-informationsfreiheitsgesetz/8335711
https://orf.at/stories/3343466/
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000190968/informationsfreiheitsgesetz-in-der-ausnahme-liegt-die-kraft